>> am i sexually attracted to underage boys? >> yes. your sexually attracted to young boys, to underage boys? >> this exchange between jerry sandusky and bob costas was so damaging it was used as evidence in court but what you just heard might actually end up helping the convicted child rapist. it has to do with a bad video edit. i'll talk with a legal expert. too close to call, this photo finish was no help to judges. take a close look. what do you think? there can only be one winner so who decides. newsroom begins right now. good morning. happy monday to you i'm carol costello. thank you so much for joining us. right now we're keeping a close eye on the u.s. supreme court. could be just minutes away from issuing some of its most important decisions in decades. announcements could come at the top of the hour or format matter any time this week. the decisions could shape president obama's legacy.

his chances for re-election and most importantly your health. at issue whether the government can force you to buy health insurance. also expected this week a decision in the passionate debate over immigration and once again it's a test of federal power. did arizona overstep its authority in creating top new immigration laws. the rulings are sure to ignite new debate on individual rights and public safety. here's cnn's kate bolduan. >> we're done. >> reporter: march 23rd, 2010, president obama signs into law the signature achievement of his presidency, the affordable care act, the landmark and controversial health care overhaul. >> after all the votes have been tallied, health insurance reform becomes law in the united states of america. >> reporter: within hours states across the country filed lawsuits challenging the law. >> this is about liberty, it's

not just about health care. >> reporter: led by florida, 26 states argued the law's central provision is unconstitutional. the so-called individual mandate. it requires almost every american to purchase health insurance by 2014 or pay a penalty. opponents say the constitution's commerce clause does not give congress the power to force individuals to purchase a commercial product like health insurance they may not need or want. paul clement is arguing before the supreme court. >> these issues are central whether the federal government can really regulate knigit wants to. >> reporter: the government defends the sweeping reforms arguing medical care is not a choice. that every american will need health care at some point in their lives. they also say tens of millions of uninsured americans are costing everyone else more. $43 million in uncommon pen saided costs in 2008 alone

according to government figures. >> no one is saying there's a right to free load off of one's neighbor when you decide not to choose health insurance. >> reporter: the stakes only grow larger with the supreme court taking the case just months before an election. >> if i'm president we're getting rid of obamacare and returning to freedom. >> reporter: and the spotlight is on the justices themselves. as with the bush v gore case in 2000 will the justices be criticized for letting politics creep into the courtroom. >> the health care cases have huge political overtones obviously i think the justices are probably going to put them to the side. the legal stakes are so high that i don't think they will pay attention that much if at all to the fact that it's occurring in an election cycle. they got to get the case right. >> kate bolduan reporting. ever since the supreme court heard the health care arguments in march legal experts and journalists have been trying to predict how each justice will

vote. one tried and true method is measuring how each member of the court focused on one team of lawyers. only a minority of the bench, the four democratic appointees focused their scrutiny on lawyers challenging the law. now the members of the court who aimed most of their attention at the administration's lawyer, chief justice john roberts jr. and justices samuel alito and scalia. anthony kennedy a bit less so but he appears to be the swing vote. he's a moderate conservative. just thinks thomas rarely speaks but historically he has supported conservative values. and in addition to our coverage, cnn.com will blog live on what's happening at the u.s. supreme court. you can find it at cnn.co

cnn.com/thisjustin. cnn.com/thisjustin if you want to join in on the fun. we're watching two massive weather events this morning that are affecting millions of you. tropical storm debby has stalled in the gulf of mexico. and delivering a double threat to florida. the swirling skies will drop as much as 25 inches of rain in some areas. in central florida a tornado killed one person. even the experts aren't sure where this storm is head next. in colorado this morning at least seven, seven wildfires are burning and flames like these have chased more than 10,000 people from their homes. relief nowhere on the horizon. more than 100,000 acres have burned and fire crews say hot, dry conditions will work against them in the coming days. so let's begin with the beating that florida is taking this morning. tropical storm debby may not be moving much for the next couple of days, that could mean

widespread flooding though and huge damage costs. but the storm is not just a rain maker it's also capable ever spinning off tornadoes like the ones that seem to strike near sarasota. >> it all happened really fast in a matter of 30 seconds. we just saw a bunch of wind pick up. we were shoved into the bathroom. >> cnn's john zarrella is in florida. how does it took? >> reporter: we were driving from clearwater south through madeira beach and treasure island and past saint pete beach. this is one of those areas that last night did get hit by either straight line winds or a waterspout that may have developed in the gulf and came across here. a lot of damage in this particular area. some roofs we noticed that had been pulled up, a lot of roofing material torn off. trees uprooted, the power was

completely out in this area. we do not know of any significant injury at all in this area. fortunately. a lot of people are out right now. the fire department, the paramedics are here as well as the police because, you know, on every block here and just a very narrow spit of land with water on the intercoastal on one land and gulf of mexico on the other and just about every block has some form of damage. i'm looking right now at some huge, huge uprooted oak trees here as well as a house that lost a little bit of its roofing material. so, you know, a lot of the kind of damage, carol, that you would expect to see from, a you know, either straight line winds or a small waterspout or tornado that came through here. of course if you were in the middle of it last night, of course when this weather hit here it was certainly very frightening experience for the people here.

this is clearly, you know, the worst and most significant damage that we've seen so far. carol. >> i know you're driving to your final destination. when you get there you'll rejoin us maybe in about an hour or so. john zarrella reporting live this morning from florida. so you heard debby has confounded experts all weekend long. much of the gulf coast still on edge because meteorologists can't figure out where this thing will eventually go. meteorologist alexandra steele is trying, though. what does it took like? >> let me tell you why. let me show you. this is what we call the spaghetti plot. what each of these lines are a different computer model's projection of where this computer model thinks it will go. some have it going west, some have it going evident. less so than what we've seen the last couple of days. the consensus generally now into northwest florida. but also want to show you national hurricane center does have its official track as well and i want has it moving

north-northeastward making landfall perhaps on thursday, maybe early thursday morning. you can see by apalachicola, right now the center of location is 90 miles south-southwest of apalachicola. you're saying where is this tropical storm? you don't even see it. all this right here has been where the rain is and the heaviest rain has been on the eastern side. it's not organized. it's incredibly le ly lop side. this is north and east of that. we've seen some dry air work into that. all you need to know about that we're seeing weakening and not blow up like we had seen although you can see right here the beginning of maybe some redevelopment in intensity. but winds are still and have been at 50 miles per hour. maximum sustained winds. this is the key. its movement. stationary and the movement not expected to go anywhere for the next couple of days. not even the next couple of hours. so that's been key and the fact

that there's no really forward momentum is kind of adding to injury in terms of the difficulty in forecasting where it will go. that's one aspect. the second aspect no upper level movement. nothing pushing it out of the way or one way. here's what we could see. this could be a big flooding event. it wouldn't surprise me that here's this rain maybe six to ten inches but maybe we've seen the worst of it already. wouldn't be out of the question which john was talking about in florida with tornadoes and seven inches of rain record breaking for yesterday. >> hope that is the scenario we're looking at. that's the best bet. thank you. >> let's head on into egypt. many people who filled tahrir square to protest and overthrow their former president are now celebrating the country's first democratically elected president. that would be the former muslim brotherhood candidate, mohamed morsi. he'll take office july 1st after defeating ahmed shah fix. his challenges are just beginning.

we go live to cairo, overlooking tahrir square, what's the mood there? >> reporter: well, carol, the mood right now people are a little bit tired from celebrating last night. this wasn't really a strong mandate from mohamed morsi to rule egypt. if you break down the numbers he won by a little over 50% which shows just about half of egypt didn't really want him to be president or really didn't care. but for the supporters down in the square that they were overly excited when the news came in, hugging each other, jumping for joy, people crying, it was quite a scene to behold. i want to also point out to you though, not everyone who was in the square were supporters of the muslim brotherhood. there were other people who were part of revolutionary groups who didn't want so much mohamed morsi but they didn't want to see ahmed shah fix as the president. moving for, mohamed morsi still doesn't have complete control of the president.

the skrem council the armed forces did limit some of his powers to basically engaging countries with internationally and also selecting his cabinet but legislative powers still lie with the supreme council of the armed forces. >> ian lee reporting live for us from cairo. still ahead, no money in the bank? no problem. just keep those small debit purchases under $5 and jpmorgan says it won't charge you and overdraft fee. you see us, at the start of the day. on the company phone list that's a few names longer. you see us bank on busier highways. on once empty fields.

everyday you see all the ways all of us at us bank are helping grow our economy. lending more so companies and communities can expand, grow stronger and get back to work. everyday you see all of us serving you, around the country, around the corner. us bank. the lines. the cost. the hassle. ♪ express yourself [ female announcer ] why not try coffee-mate? with over 25 delicious flavors for a fraction of the cost of the coffee house. add your flavor with coffee-mate, from nestle. add your flavor welcome to hotels.com. summer road trip, huh? as the hotel experts, finding you the perfect place is all we do. this summer, save up to 30%, plus get up to $100 on us. welcome to hotels.com.

i'm one of six children that my mother raised by herself, and so college was a dream when i was a kid. i didn't know how i was gonna to do it, but i knew i was gonna get that opportunity one day, and that's what happened with university of phoenix. nothing can stop me now. i feel like the sky's the limit with what i can do and what i can accomplish. my name is naphtali bryant and i am a phoenix. visit phoenix.edu to find the program that's right for you. enroll now.

16 minutes past the hour. checking our top stories now. in 45 minutes the u.s. supreme court could issue rulings in two key cases, one concerns whether president obama's health care law is constitutional. we could also learn the fate of arizona's controversial immigration law. in weather news tropical storm debby lashes florida with more strong winds and threatens to spawn more tornadoes. debby has stalled in the gulf but could dump as much a foot of rain across northern florida. the storm being blamed for one death after tornadoes destroyed several homes in central florida. the unofficial symbol for ecuador galapagos islands died. the giant tortoise was the last of his particular species. ine sports come down to a coin toss or a runoff for the u.s. women's 100 meter dash. this incredible photo finish. look at that. too close to call even for a camera. both runners finished in an

absolute dead heat for third place. now officials are trying to figure out what to do since only the top three can make to it the olympic team. in money news jpmorgan chase says it will stop charging overdraft fees for any debit card purchase of $5 or less no matter how many transactions you make. the decision was part of a $110 million class action lawsuit settlement. some had accused the bank of charging excessive overdraft fees. you may love it or hate it or simply not understand it so if the supreme court strikes down obamacare will you care? that's what we're asking you today. our talk back is next.

back on one of the big stories of the day, the question for this morning what do you want to see happen to obamacare. the final showdown. as the conservative drudge report put it, death panel, supreme set fatal blow to obamacare. question mark? that's what republicans are hoping. the u.s. supreme court will do what they couldn't kill the bill. the supremes could decide as justice scalia not to force you to eat broccoli. as they deem it unconstitutional insurance companies can deny coverage, young people will no longer be able to stay on their parents' plans and seniors will get no help with prescription drug costs and i want means the

individual mandate, the requirement that most of us buy health insurance will die. polls show most americans don't like the law. they show most americans don't tuned law. some say it doesn't go far enough. but democrats have already have their talking points ready just in case. >> we cannot say to the american people we're going to throw you at the mercy of the insurance companies, but, again, there has to be a way to pay for it to reduce the cost, to expand the coverage, to improve the quality and this bill did just that. >> with the individual mandate. also republicans, they are vowing not to spike the ball if the law goes down. some are considering resurrecting parts of the law that voters seem to like except that is for house speaker john boehner. >> unless the court throws out the entire bill, the house will

vote to repeal whatever is left of obamacare. >> bottom line, americans will still be confused about the law, and our health care system will still be a mess. so the question for you this morning, what do you want to happen to obamacare? what do you want the u.s. supreme court to do? facebook.com/carolcnn. i'll read your comments later this hour. huge wildfires in colorado are chasing 10,000 people from their homes. and there doesn't seem to be any relief in sight for them or for firefighters. [ male announcer ] we imagined a vehicle

that could adapt to changing road conditions. one that continually monitors and corrects for wheel slip. we imagined a vehicle that can increase emergency braking power when you need it most. and we imagined it looking like nothing else on the road today. then...we built it. the 2012 glk. see your authorized mercedes-benz dealer for exceptional offers through mercedes-benz financial services. ♪ ♪ ♪ ♪

i'm making my money do more. ♪ i'm consolidating my assets. i'm not paying hidden fees or high commissions. i'm making the most of my money. and seven-dollar trades are just the start. i'm with scottrade. i'm with scottrade. i'm with scottrade. and i'm loving every minute of it. [ rodger riney ] at scottrade, we give you commission-free etfs, no-fee iras and more. come see why more investors are saying... i'm with scottrade. 25 minutes past the hour.

in just about 30 minutes the supreme court could issue rulings on two key case, one concerns whether president obama's health care law is constitutional, we could also learn the fate of arizona's controversial immigration law. we have a lot of people down at the u.s. supreme court keeping an eye on things. let's talk about health care reform because that's considered the signature accomplishment of the obama administration and with good reason. for 60 years presidents of both parties tried and failed to improve health care coverage for americans. cnn chief medical correspondent dr. sanjay gupta has more for you. >> reporter: in putting his signature on what came to be known as obamacare the president did what others had tried to do and failed. many times since world war ii. starting with harry truman. he wanted to increase the availability of doctors and hospitals and have the government serve as a guarantor of insurance for all americans.

but in congress truman's plan never got so much as a vote. >> the american medical association, very wealthy, very powerful lobby group also vehemently campaigned against truman's hearth plans. >> we don't want socialized medicine. >> reporter: in the 1960s a similar fight, ronald reagan before becoming governor of california recorded this message. pass medicare and the united states would soon become like the communist soviet union. >> one of these days you and i are going to spend our sunset years telling our children and our children's children what it was once like in america when men were free. >> reporter: reagan's efforts fell short and lyndon johnson signed a law creating medicare, health insurance for every american over the age of 65 and medicaid for the poor. it wasn't just democrats, richard nixon had big ambitions on health care. >> richard nixon put forth a

very comprehensive plan which looks a lot in structure like the obama plan. and then you remember we had a little problem with watergate and nixon we signed and health insurance totally died. >> reporter: by the early 1990s there was the clinton plan to cover every american without spending more. >> health care reform must be achieved for the good of our country. >> reporter: too big opponents said, ooh too expensive, too complicated. >> we'll lose our doctors, not be able to make medical choice. it wasn't true but these kinds of arguments resonated. >> reporter: like truman's plan it never came to a full vote. around that time many republicans like house speaker newt gingrich started talking of something called a mandate. a requirement that every american buy his or her own coverage. >> by having a mandate you can have universal or near universal coverage and still preserve the private insurance system. so the idea of a mandate was a

republican idea. >> reporter: by 2008 hillary clinton now running for president was pushing the mandate herself. >> i cannot stress to you how passion analytically i feel about fighting for universal health care. >> reporter: as she ran against the senator obama. back then obama was against it. >> senator clinton said oil bake universal health care by mandating that everybody buy it, but if people can't afford it it doesn't matter what the mandate is they won't buy it. >> reporter: by election time he came around to clinton's position and now obamacare will likely rise or fall on that very pillar. dr. sanjay gupta, cnn, reporting. >> that's right. in just about 30 minutes the u.s. supreme court, the justice might reveal its decision on whether obamacare and the individual mandate, the requirement we all buy insurance is constitutional. we're watching. while all of this is going on the campaign for president

continues. mitt romney will be in arizona later today, just one time for a possible supreme court ruling on arizona's immigration law. and president obama will be in massachusetts where romney care similar to obamacare is up and running. cnn's political director mark preston is in washington. do you think the candidates planned that or is it just karma? >> reporter: how dare you take policy and politics and try to weave it together. >> it's weird though, isn't it? >> reporter: you know, it is weird. for mr. romney it's not that good when you're just talking about immigration. he's now trying to walk a fine line on the whole issue of immigration. we saw him do that last week certainly when he spoke to the conference. he was very hard lined on illegal immigration in the republican primary and in many ways that helped him. heading into the again rag election he needs to back off that a little bit. president obama will be in new hampshire early this afternoon for a campaign event but he'll be in boston later this evening for a series of fundraisers and

that's where governor romney helped craft his own health care legislation. >> that's right. so if the u.s. supreme court rules the health care law is unconstitutional will president obama address the nation? >> reporter: he'll certainly address it this afternoon. i don't know how he doesn't. in many ways some would say, you know, this could be devastating for president obama because this is his signature domestic issue. however, if the supreme court does strike down parts of the law, the obama administration, the obama campaign might say look, we got most of it right and in fact that was a good thing. they also could use to it try to rally the base who is very fervently behind the whole idea of health care and i have to point this out, the white house just a short time ago was moving around a press release. let me read the headline because it's very telling certainly where we stand right now. over 5.2 million people with medicare save $3.7 billion on prescription drugs thanks to the

affordable care act. i got to tell you what, carol, it's not shocking they would send that just before the supreme court might rule on this law. >> no, because they probably want the u.s. supreme court to look as partisan as possible if they, of course, come down with a decision that the law is unconstitutional in any way. let me ask you about the republicans. they made a gop response guy that's representative tom price, a physician from georgia. he's ready to go. now, i want you to all keep in mind there are parts of obamacare that people like so what, mark, do you suppose that dr. price will say? >> reporter: well a couple of things. one they will say that the mandate or what is known as the mandate is unconstitutional and people should not be forced into buying health care insurance. what the obama administration and campaign is hoping in fact that the supreme court today describes it as a tax and if they describe it as a tax the supreme court will rule with them. but it's not just tom price who will be helping lead the message for congressional republicans on capitol hill but i just got off

the phone with one of mitt romney's top advisors and we shouldn't be surprised by this but mitt romney is planning to tie this no matter what happens to this to the economy and that's part of his message for most of the week and the romney campaign much like the obama campaign has multiple messaging points ready to go if we hear from the supreme court in just under 30 minutes. >> we'll get ready to debate it. mark preston you'll stick around? >> reporter: i certainly will. >> a new addition, cnn.com will blog live. go to cnn.com/thisjustin. keep in mind jeffrey is inside the u.s. supreme court listening just in case. so we'll be interested in seeing what he has to say. cnn.com/thisjustin. ask me how i've never slept better.

[ male announcer ] why not talk to one of the six million people who've switched to the most highly recommended bed in america? ask me about my tempur-pedic. [ male announcer ] did you know there's tempur-pedic for everybody? and right now is the perfect time to buy. save up to $200 during our mattress set savings event and up to $600 on tempur-cloud supreme. for five days only, get 0% apr financing with up to five years to pay. to learn more, visit tempurpedic.com. don't wait. five-year financing ends june 25th. tempur-pedic -- the most highly recommended bed in america.

just about 30 minutes or less the u.s. supreme court could release its ruling on the health ce law. this is a live look from outside of the court where a decision could come down this morning on whether president obama's signature piece of legislation is constitutional. the main stick being point, the individual mandate. that requires nearly every american to buy health insurance by 2014 or face stiff financial penalties. opponents of the health care law

say that's unconstitutional. but let's talk about the war on cranberries. you may be asking what does that have to do with the supreme court and obamacare? first the cranberry war. who started it? michelle obama and her let's move initiative. the agriculture department is now finalizing guidelines of what can be sold in school vending machines. sugar is a target. we went to ocean spray's website and cranberry juice cocktail has 30 grams of sugar per eight ounce serving. cue the cranberry cause sues. massachusetts senators john kerry and scott brown and others are fighting for cranberries. they are nutritional. they fight urinary tract infections. what makes some people so upset about the war on cranberries is not just the loss of jobs but the government is once again inserting itself into our lives. so let's talk about how cranberries are symbolic of what

bothers many americans about obamacare. cnn contributors join us. welcome, gentlemen. >> good morning. >> morning, carol. >> did you like my cranberry symbolism kind of thing? >> i sure did. >> think about the departed when i have this conversation. remember that scene in the departed. >> oh, i got to watch that. >> exactly. >> you could tie cranberries to health care, food police, government forcing you to buy health insurance. so is the idea of the government controlling everything so pervasive the u.s. supreme court will consider that and decide to strike down at least part of obamacare? >> you know, whenever i think about something like this conversation now about the cranberry war if you will i think about the reason why president obama may lose this election. it's not necessarily what he's done but how it's messaged. the reason i say that is because

addressing sugar and how that impacts the economy makes all the sense in the world if you can connect the dots. if you think about it, we pay about, i don't know, $49 billion this year in unpaid hospital bills, most of that because of poor people who can't afford to pay off their bills. who picks up the tab on that? we do. taxpayers. cutting back off of poor people getting sick and fat consuming too much sugar helps the economy. it's a real conversation. because the president hasn't been able to communicate that effectively it comes across as we're trying to control what you eat and what you drink. when actually it does impact the economy. >> let's talk about effective message. many democrats say, liberals say president obama hasn't exactly done a great job on communicating what the health care bill is all about. in fact, many people still don't understand it, will. >> yeah. you know, i think it's kind of interesting we talk about

messaging being the problem. the proponents of these bills act like they are righteous and so obvious and it is to themselves but they can't message it out to these silly americans who can't connect the dots. there's a problem on the substance and there was from start on the individual mandate within obamacare. people who were proponent of obamacare have egg on their face and since from the beginning. remember nancy pelosi going up there constitutional, are you serious? are you serious? do you remember her asking this. t this from the very beginning, this was a great leap forward, this was a stretch, this isn't a messaging problem for obamacare. i'm not speaking to cranberries. for obamacare it's not a messaging issue. it's a constitutional issue. >> bloomberg did this big study and said most constitutional lawyers think the law is constitutional and should be upheld. >> that -- >> if it's not -- constitutional lawyers study the constitution.

i don't. i'm just saying if the u.s. supreme court like let's say it comes down with a 5-4 decision against obamacare that will prove the u.s. supreme court is partisan. >> that will be -- i have no doubt that will be a concerted and relentless effort and still he in fwlekt to address the basic issue no matter how many executional lawyers think about it it's a great leap forward in constitutional powers. >> the basic message is we still need to do sboeg our health care system and about poor people and sick people because it's impacting the economy. that's what this is all about. >> no. >> we're making it political. it's about the people. that's why president obama instituted this in the first place. he has the best health care insurance available to man on this planet. he doesn't need it for himself. he's doing it for the sick people and to help the economy. >> that's fine. and that issue will remain. you're exactly right. needs to be addressed. it's totally irrelevant whether

this law was constitutional. >> how can it be irrelevant. it doesn't exist in a vacuum. >> we have to end it. you can like call each other and fight some more. thanks so much. we're standing by to see if the u.s. supreme court hands down one of its biggest decisions in years. will the justice strike down or uphold obamacare. [ male announcer ] at scottrade,

you won't just find us online, you'll also find us in person, with dedicated support teams at over 500 branches nationwide. so when you call or visit, you can ask for a name you know. because personal service starts with a real person. [ rodger ] at scottrade, seven dollar trades are just the start.

our support teams are nearby, ready to help. it's no wonder so many investors are saying... [ all ] i'm with scottrade.

as i've been telling you we're awaiting the u.s. supreme court decision to come down. may or may not come down. we're hoping i want comes down today. the supreme court will rule whether all or part of president obama's health care law is constitutional. jeffrey is inside the supreme court. he tweeted out two messages and i'll read home to you. his first tweet said in the press room, nerd heaven in here. his second tweet the courtroom is now open, time to go upstairs to watch decisions promptly at 10:00 a.m. eastern time. so, jeffrey is watching. so obamacare the final showdown the u.s. supreme court could strike the law down today or rule at least parts of it unconstitutional. let's ask this question. is that good or bad? of course that all depends. joining me now is a doctor with a group doctors for america. she supports obamacare. sally pipes is the president of pacific research institute a san

francisco base think tank. she write as weekly health care column for forbes.com. she opposes obamacare. so sally let's start with you. you wrote in your recent column the supreme court should strike down the law, the entire law saying that would be the best outcome for american patients. why do you think so? >> well, i think it is the best decision because if they decide to just get rid of the individual mandate we'll have a serious problem because we have issues such as guaranteed issue and community right which means insurers cannot discriminate based on a person's pre-existing condition or charge a different price. i want will cause the insurance industry to go in a downward spiral because people will only buy insurance when they are sick and drop it well. we saw in kentucky and washington state where they introduced those two concepts it caused to it decline and washington state had to get rid of it. i want to see it go down and we can start with a fresh approach.

we want to empower doctorsnd patients. we all want affordable, accessible quality care. obamacare is not the answer. it's going to result in, you know, still a large 23 million people uninsured. we'll add 18 people to medicaid. >> let's concentrate on the individual man date because you said something interesting and doctor i want to pose this question to you. sally is right. if the individual mandate is struck down you can't pay for the law because insurance companies can take on anybody with pre-existing conditions let's say and the way insurance companies would pay for that is if well people would buy insurance and then the insurance companies would have the money to do that. so, if the individual mandate is deemed unconstitutional does that mean the whole thing should go? >> no. i think -- >> wait. >> hi. i think the individual mandate is just a small portion of the law. i mean i agree with miss pipes, the whole idea of the affordable

care act the office actually be able to help bridge the gap of people not having affordable health care or having been uninsured. the affordable health care act allows for 32 more million people to be covered. i'm not in the business of buying and selling help. i'm in the business of taking care of people. i went into medicine because i believe one patients over profits. the fact is that individual mandate gets shut down. that's not a big part of the bill. we can move forward. the affordable care act does provide provision from tent people and protect my patients. so i think that the affordable care act won't be shut down and if the individual mandate does i'm disappointed, but we'll move forward. >> sally, there are aspects of obamacare that people like, like the part where you can keep your kid on your insurance plan until they are 26 years old. help seniors pay for prescription drugs. you know it covers the doughnut hole there.

so if the entire law is struck down those things would go away too, right? >> yes, they absolutely would, but insurance companies will be able to decide on what they want to do. some insurance companies said they will continue on keeping children on their parents' plans. 3 million kids are on their parents' insurance. i'm not sure how many had their own insurance, gave it up and transferred to their parents' plan. definitely added to the cost employer based coverage. the average plan today for a family of four is about $15,000. it is up because of the expansion of including kids. another thing that some insurers have said they will cover people with pre-existing conditions and as you said they want to close the doughnut hole on the medicare part d. so, you know, southeast big worries are if the man date goes down we still have the state base exchanges in there, we have this tremendous expansion of adding 18 million people to

medicaid and of course the subsidies for people the 16 million people. it's -- i think it's so important that the whole law be struck down and we start again with a plan that will bring affordable accessible quality care. >> we have to leave it there. when you say start fresh that scares me because i remember the last time we started fresh on this. go ahead. last word. >> so, what miss pipes is suggesting is that if we strike this down the insurance companies take control. so, i mean, you're asking to line pockets of insurance companies and not being able to focus on patient care. so, if you want the affordable care act to be struck down then i would like to know what the solution is of protecting people. you're asking for the insurance companies to make the decision for me as a doctor, and that's what the problem was in the beginning. doctors took control of this sand said enough is enough, we

want to be protected. and you're not giving me any solutions. >> wait a second, you both are going to stick around, you're going to be here for the next hour and ten minutes so you'll be able to get in all your talking points and hopefully a decision will be forth coming. . as we have been saying, the supreme court could be making a rule on health care. je jeffrey toobin in court, hopefully he'll have an answer for us soon. for a fraction of the cost of the coffee house. add your flavor with coffee-mate, from nestle. add your flavor you see us, at the start of the day. on the company phone list that's a few names longer. you see us bank on busier highways. on once empty fields. everyday you see all the ways all of us at us bank are helping grow our economy. lending more so companies and communities can expand, grow stronger and get back to work.

everyday you see all of us serving you, around the country, around the corner. us bank.

we are covering all the angles of the supreme court coverage on health care. welcome to both of you. >> thank you. >> anybody have any predictions? gloria. >> no. no, no, no. i would not predict what the supreme court is going to do. but i will tell you, particularly regarding health care reform, i think this is the most important political decision, if you will, or a decision that will affect polit politics, the most important since bush v. gore. i think anything this court does, particularly with a 5-4 ruling is going to impact this presidential race, in a huge way. it's going to impact the country in a huge way.

and i don't think we can really underestimate or understate the importance of what the court is going to do. >> i am amazed, david, that the court's decision has remained secret because it's made its decision, it made it a while ago and not a peep. >> absolutely. isn't it really striking, it's one of the few times washington does keep a secret. i must say, i have a sense that there must be some conversations going on behind the scenes because i have had this feeling that the supreme court is going to strike down the mandate. it's been interesting to watch those odds have falling since, it's at about 74% now. but i think the expectation is the mandate is going to go, and i agree with gloria, this is a momentous decision, not only

important for millions of americans, not only important for this president, if he gets re-elected. it's been a long time the court has struck down a major legislative signature issue. >> it's a monumentous decision, but i think that most americans don't understand all of the law and they don't understand that the law has not -- the entire law has not even been implemented yet. >> a lot of the law doesn't take effect until 2014 and that was one of the reasons the obama administration actually argued that we shouldn't even be dealing with part of the law. or that -- so, look, i think that this is a huge decision, people understand it at a gut level. they understand what universal insurance is, they understand what a mandate is, because they know that after a couple of years, they're going to have to pay in if they don't have health

insurance now. they understand the notion of being insured for preexisting conditions. and those kinds of issues, prescription drug benefits and all the rest so. while they may not understand every jot and tittle of this huge law, a lot of people don't, most people don't, i think they do understand the impact of it. let me say one more thing politically, what's interesting to me is if you take a step back here and you look at president obama and mitt romney, health care has been at the center of both of their political universes and they both had to deal with it in the aftermath one day or another. this was supposed to be the president's legacy, now he's fighting for it within the supreme court. and in the state of massachusetts, it was mitt romney's legacy and now he's running away from it as fast as he can. >> as i said, jeffrey toobin is left side that courtroom, we're

going to check with him, we'll be back with more. [ male announcer ] citi turns 200 this year. in that time there've been some good days. and some difficult ones. but, through it all, we've persevered, supporting some of the biggest ideas in modern history. so why should our anniversary matter to you? because for 200 years, we've been helping ideas move from ambition to achievement. and the next great idea could be yours. ♪

and good morning to you, happy monday, i'm carol coste o costello, we begin with breaking news, right now we're keeping a close eye on the u.s. supreme court. for some of the most important decisions in decades. an announcement could come at any moment, or for that matter, sometime this week, we do know the impact, the decision could

shape obama's legacy, at issue whether the government can force you to buy health insurance, also expected this week, a decision in the passionate debate over immigration. and once again it's about -- tough new immigration laws. the rulings are sure to ignite debates on individual rights and public safety. legal experts and journalists have been trying to predict how each member of the court will vote. if history bears out, the health care reform might be in trouble that's only because the minority of the bench focused their scrutiny on the majority of the law. now the members of the court who aim most of their attention to the administration's lawyer,

were all one sided. anthony kennedy a bit less, but he appears to be the swing vote, he's a moderate conservative, just as justice thomas rarely speaks during the court's -- we're covering this health care issue from all angles this morning, it's important to over -- now we'll bring in our political team, chief national correspondent john king. senior political analyst gloria goringer and david gergen and mark preston. jessica, the president will be in new hampshire and later massachusetts which is quite interesting because that's where romney care is, a version of obama care? did he plan it that way. >> they definitely planned to be here this day knowing that the supreme court could rule on health care today, and no accident that they could draw

this contrast. i'm not sure they're expecting this day to be the health care ruling, but we certainly will see, carol. >> does the president have a plan of what he will say if the supreme court decides to strike down all or part of obama care? >> yes. they are geared up and they have made clear is that -- there are a few things we're clear about. one is that during the arts, the justice department made clear in their -- in the case that they submitted and in the arguments that they made that if the supreme court should try to strike down the individual mandate, they believe they should sever only certain parts of the law. and they should let stand other parts of the law so that the

preexisting conditions part for example would go in that imagination with the individual mandate, and another piece would go with the individual mandate, but some of these other components, such as covering kids who are 26 on their parents plan could still stand. covering -- giving people prepreventative health care could still stand, lowering prescription drug costs, so this this decision allows that part to stand, the obama administration would be able to rule out and make sure that those components do stand. should they strike down the whole law, one could imagine that the white house and campaign are ready to make clear to americans, quote, in their conceptions just what americans have lost. and then to call on the republicans to say, okay, guy, what have you got? how are you going to cover americans? >> let's discuss how monumental

this decision could be. >> first and foremost, it would be hon -- the health of every american will be affected by this and the obama administration will be deeply affected by this. you have to go back to franklin roosevelt since the supreme court struck down a signature legislative action by a president. if the court strikes down the mandate, it's obviously a question about what happens to health care, but there's huge political and historic ramifications. >> let's talk about some of those, gloria, republicans have already made a gop response by his republican tom price, he's a physician from georgia, he's

ready to go with a republican message. i have heard that if the supreme court strikes down the law, we'll just come up with something new, how likely is that? >> before the election, i think the chances of that are zero. and you had the house speaker pass out a memo this week saying, you know what? this if health care law gets struck down, do not strike the ball. if this gets struck down and for example, if the question of preexisting conditions does get struck down with it. then the white house can say, okay, republicans, what do you want to do next? where is your plan to make sure that people with preexisting conditions do not lose their coverage. so it's a very complicated nuanced response from both sides and what i think the house

speaker was saying to republicans is essentially be careful what you wish for, because if you get it, you have to figure out what to do next, and if you get it, then mitt romney loses one of his sort of signature campaign points which is repeal the president's health care plan. >> yes, so it will already be gone. >> jack, i want to bring you into this again, i remember the health care debate too, it was one of the most contentious debates in american history. so when republicans say, we'll just start fresh, we're a partisan nation right now, how likely is that that angle? >> remember, carol, the republicans were the minority in the house, you have a different republican party now, especially because a lot of the newer tea party influence members who have never won don't think the government should be doing this, number two don't think the government should be spending anymore more, so the republican position would be even more

complicated and even more confusing before the 2010 election. gloria is right, the republicans realize they need to be careful, because parts of the law are popular. republicans are confident that they think the mandate, the government telling you you have to buy health care, they believe there's majority opposition to that, but making sure you can get insurance if you have preexisting conditions, they know that's popular. letting kids stay on their parents insurance until they get out of college, that's also popular. so republicans are saying they're willing to come forward and do much of this. if not all of it. the other thing is if it's struck down, the president will -- a lot of people thought he should focus more on the economy and jobs out of the gateway, instead he tried to do this democratic priority for a half a century, passing a bill health care bill, and he did that and he paid a big political

price for it. a lot of people will go back and say, mr. president, told you so, you should have had a more bipartisan health care bill in the beginning and then tried to build on it. >> mark preston, i know you have been on the phone this morning, what did they tell you. >> what we do know is that mitt romney will tie whatever happens, whether the supreme court strikes down the whole law or just an individual mandate. he will tie this entirely to the economy. and as our panel have all said, it's quite true, who knows what the political fallout is going to be over the next 120, 130 days. some recognize the fact that if the law stands that will be enough to embolden conservatives to get behind mitt romney and help him win the november. if president obama losing the main date, if that part of the

bill is struck down, that will galvanize the political party to come out and president mr. obama in november. >> mark, gloria, david and john stick around, we'll be back on what could be a momentous decision coming out of the supreme court. get the rulings as they come down, reaction to the decircumstances, tweets from our reporters covering the story in the field as well as reaction from around the world. cnn.com/thisjustin. man: there's a cattle guard, take a right.

do you have any idea where you're going ? wherever the wind takes me. this is so off course. nature can surprise you sometimes... next time, you drive. next time, signal your turn. ...that's why we got a subaru. love wherever the road takes you. ♪ you want to save money on car insurance? no problem. you want to save money on rv insurance?

no problem. you want to save money on motorcycle insurance? no problem. you want to find a place to park all these things? fuggedaboud it. this is new york. hey little guy, wake up! aw, come off it mate! geico. saving people money on more than just car insurance. the teacher that comes to mind for me is my high school math teacher, dr. gilmore. i mean he could teach. he was there for us, even if we needed him in college. you could call him, you had his phone number. he was just focused on making sure we were gonna be successful. he would never give up on any of us.

we have been talking about health care, but we could see a supreme court decision on immigration too this morning, as you take a look at the scene outside of the u.s. supreme court in washington this morning. some of these people are tourists, some are protesters, either for or against obama care, many of them are reporters. our jeffrey toobin as a matter of fact is inside the court, awaiting the court's possible decision on these two momentous things, one on health care, the other on arizona's tough immigration law. juan carlos lopez, good morning. >> good morning. >> tell us the specific part of arizona's immigration law that the u.s. supreme court is most concerned about. >> what's in dispute now is the

state's rights to decide and to create legislation that deals with immigration. remember, the government has said that immigration policy is something that has to do with the forward government, not the states, so in this case the state says that the federal government hasn't done their job to protect the state. there are other aspects of 1070, but depending on what the ruling brings, what other states might do using this as guidance to where they can go and what the court conditions constitutional. >> this really boils down to states' rights, and doesn't arizona have the right to protect its borders? >> and a lot of people k we have spoken to, a lot of activists and organizations are prepared for an adverse ruling, but they say this is only one aspect of

the law, there are other lawsuits that are still in process, and there are others that will be filed, but this according to these groups and to people who are biting their nail at this moment, i assume, will give states a light to where they can go and where other states can go with different laws and different policies. so we'll see what impact this has, but those groups are ready to file their lawsuits and they're waiting for other lawsuits to come up the system. >> and the obama administration's argument is that it in the constitution that only the federal government can enforce immigration laws, and that's their argument, correct? >> yeah, one of the surprises during the arguments before the supreme court was that that was the main argument by the government that if they didn't emphasize or focus on civil rights issues, on racial profiling, on issues that might

be a consequence, it was the focus on the rights the states have and the authority the federal government has over the states, especially in issues like border security, international relations and such. >> juan carlos lopez, you're going to stick around because we're thinking maybe either decision may come down in the next 15 minutes. jeffrey toobin is there, and he continue communicate with us from the courtroom. but he's in in. hopefully he's looking at the justices. we'll be right back. but, through it all, we've persevered, supporting some of the biggest ideas in modern history. so why should our anniversary matter to you? because for 200 years, we've been helping ideas move from ambition to achievement. and the next great idea could be yours.

♪ there it is ! there it is ! where ? where ? it's getting away ! where is it ? it's gone. we'll find it. any day can be an adventure. that's why we got a subaru. love wherever the road takes you. wow, there it is.

all right, we do have breaking news to tell you, the supreme court has ruled on one of those momentous decisions, that's on arizona's tough immigration law, at issue was whether arizona could protect its own borders or within the constitution, the federal government had the only right to enforce immigration laws. there has been a decision, 5-3 in favor of the u.s. government. so this is a victory of the obama administration? >> well, the devil is in the details, we'll have to see what that ruling says and if it is a complete victory for to the government and their case. obviously this first headline is welcome news to many in the immigrant community and many who are advocating for them and it's probably not good news author

foez who figure the u.s. government isn't doing its job and that the states have to intervene and protect their own borders. as i told you, most of the folks that we usually speak with on this issue, were expecting a ruling that would be adverse to the government. obviously this changes the perception, we're going to have to see what the ruling really says, but it's very important moment for this issue of immigration and border security. as i said, carol, we're going to have to wait what the details bring, but at least this headlines creates a new scena o scenario. >> let me explain what the u.s. supreme court was deciding about this u.s. immigration law in arizona, one, as you said, whether states have the right to enforce their own boarders. and the other part of the law that justices took aim at was the portion of the law that

requires police to determine the immigration status of suspects they stop whether they're in the u.s. legally or illegally. but we have a decision on the arizona immigration law, 5-3, for the government. david gergen what do you make of this? >> i'm not sure what to make of it. the federal government had laws on the books, but they were not enforcing, they could pass their own laws. and the court apparently has said, no you cannot do that. those were centralized powers and you can't step in. that is from a point of view of state's rights folks of people who have wanted tougher border enforcement at the state level. that's a loss, that's a defeat. and whether it says anything to us about how the court is going

to come out on health care, is a very different matter. i think it does not signal one way or the other anything about health care. >> i'm talking to my executive producer now, it was a 5-3 decision in favor of the u.s. government. there are nine justices, so one of them may have abstained. i wishrey toobin out here, but he's waiting for the decision on health care. >> sections 3, 5 and 6 have been pre-empti pre-emptive. a crime -- you had to register with the state and say i'm here illegally. and that section three also made it illegal more them not to carry registration papers, that's been preeveryomveryonepr

entirely saying if you're an illegal immigrant, you can't get a job within the state of arizona. and section 6 authorized interstate and local police officers to arrest without a warrant if the police officer have reason to believe that they have committed a crime that makes them deportable. parts of it have been upheld, we'll have to see whether those parts -- >> parts of it have been juuphe, but that pretty much guts the law, doesn't it? >> that's what it seems to do. we'll have to see if that -- those were thing things that juan carlos was saying earlier, the government didn't challenge this as a civil rights -- a lot

of the activists thought that was the best legal challenge, but it appears on those key provisions that the government has won and we're waiting for more details. >> kate bolduan is standing by for us live, have any more answers for us, kate? do we have kate? okay, we don't have kate, i know she's running to the camera, so we'll get to her as soon as we can. let's go to gloria borger, it this sounds like a great big victory for the president. >> i'm just trying to read our scotus blog, is devil's in the details here, we really need to see exactly if this is a victory for the president, how big a victory it is for the president. the central issue here that the court is trying to decide is

whether arizona enroached, disruppi disrupp -- disruptively, on what the -- is it an issue under the government's purview, oar under the state's purview, of course that's also an argument in the supreme court looking at health care reform. what we see in arizona as a law in which they call, it's their policy of attrition through enforcement as they call it. which means that they stop people and ask for their papers and deport people who don't have papers, and eventually, people are going to stop coming to the state through attrition because they know that they have a very, very strong law. >> so let me interrupt you for a second, gloria, because we want to get those details, we want to know exactly what the ruling means, so kate bolduan is ready

to go. can you fill us? >>. >> reporter: i'm sure you guys have the headlines that's a 5-2-3 ruling. what i'm seeing here in our first read through, is it appears there were really four issues that the court was considering, four provisions in the arizona immigration law. it appears from our read that three of the four, it was found that the supreme court justices found in favor of the u.s. government, not the state of arizona, two important parts of this majority opinion that i will read to you real squibiqui gives a really clear answer on where they stand on this, they said the national government has significant power to regulate immigration. power over immigration -- political will by enforcing civil, rational, civic sis court.

arizona may have understandable frustrations by the problems caused by illegal immigrations, but the state may not approve policy you can see that they're saying at least in large part here that they are agreeing with the government's argument that they made in court, that the arizona law while may be well intentioned and while they br may be frustrated, this law stepped over the line, that inencroa inencroach, it convicted, it speeded with that of the federal government over immigration policy. one part, and we're reading through this still, but as one element of this is kind of upheld, kind of leaning in favor giving arizona a bit of a bone here, if you will. it's obviously -- this is part of the statute and it says's not clear at this stage that in

practice this element will require state officers to delay the release of detainees other than to verify their immigration status. to me that means that maybe the most controversial element, the element that requires police check people's immigration status while they're in the course of their other duties if they have a reasonable suspicion that they could be in the country illegally, they may allow that practice to continue because they don't see it as infringing upon the federal frame work which is already illegal immigration policy. a very big ruling here and a very big day for the federal government. >> pause for just a second, because we understand the sheriff in arizona joe arpaio is being interviewed. >> i think we have the most trained law enforcement office in the country because it's

i.c.e. has trained 100 of my deputies, of course they took that authority away, plus 100 of my officers have been trained five-week course, federal trained, so we are well trained to perform our duties in this manner. >> thank you both for being with us. >> okay, so we joined that kind of late, we didn't get much from joe arrepaiarpaio, it appears t justices have upheld the part of the arizona law that permits police officers to ask for immigration status. kate, john king, am i reading that right? this is live, breaking coverage. but is that how you understand it? >> reporter: that is how i understand it, that this

decision, if you're pulled over for any number of laws, if they suspect you have broken a law that's already on the books, they can check your immigration status if there's reasonable suspicion that this country is in the country illegally. that was one of the four provisions that was block by the supreme court took this up. but three of the four decisions were struck down. the court has said that the u.s. government needs to have the power over immigration policy not the state of arizona. my question going forward is what does this mean for the states who have been considering laws similar to arizona. >> kate bolduan, thanks so much. for the political implications in this ruling and there are

many, i want to turn it over to my colleague john king. >> jeffrey toobin is in the court, we're going to read -- campaign finance decision and a very important ruling about the rights of juveniles who are sentenced to life in prison have the right to apply for parole a bit later. we're still waiting for the possibility of a decision on health care. we'll be back in just a moment. this is the pursuit of perfection.

this is new york state. we built the first railway, the first trade route to the west, the greatest empires. then, some said, we lost our edge. well today, there's a new new york state. one that's working to attract businesses and create jobs. a place where innovation meets determination... and businesses lead the world. the new new york works for business. find out how it can work for yours at thenewny.com. home protector plus, from liberty mutual insurance, where the costs to both repair your home and replace your possessions are covered.

and we don't just cut a check for the depreciated value -- we can actually replace your stuff with an exact or near match. plus, if your home is unfit to live in after an incident, we pay for you to stay somewhere else while it's being repaired. home protector plus, from liberty mutual insurance. because you never know what lies around the corner. to get a free quote, call... visit a local office, or go to libertymutual.com today. liberty mutual insurance. responsibility. what's your policy? welcome back to our special coverage, several important rulings by the united states

supreme court today. a ruling in a highly anticipated case, the rule has ruled parts of arizona's immigration laws as unconstitutional. here's what the court left in place, section 2 b of that law, requires state and local police officers to attempt to determine the immigration status of any individual detained for some other offense if the officer has reason to believe they're in the united states illegally. the court however threw out provisions that would have made it a crime, essentially would have required an illegal resident to register with the state, would have made it impossible to a i apply for a job in arizona and would -- as we continue our coverage and read through the rulings, also a critical political issues. our chief political analyst

glor gloria borger is with us. if you pull somebody over for a traffic offense, if you arrest them for breaking and entering and the like, an officer then has the right to essentially ask that person if they have reason to believe they're here illegally to prove it, to show documentation, that one will anger the community. >> right and during the arguments on this case, it was sort of clear that the justices had some questions about this. even sonya sotomajor. -- if they have been arrested have done something wrong and it seems reasonable to ask, where's your driver's license, and then to ask, are you here illegally, they say this is fine, you can

do that. but on the larger federal governments, of the state versus the federal government, on immigration issues, this is a clear victory for the obama administration. because it stated, i think quite clearly that the state can't per sue policies that undermine federal law on an issue as large as immigration. that it is clearly under the federal purview. >> another critical decision today, and again we're still waiting to see if we'll get the ruling, the most anticipated ruling on the health care law today, we're waiting to find out whether the court will push that until later. but there is a very important decision in a campaign finance case. it's a state case for montana, but it gets back to the giant issue, this huge superpac spending. the state has issued in this case, it's alled american

tradition partnership, the montana state law, the supreme court refusing to hear that case about -- the obama administration has complained repeatedly about the citizen's united decision saying it a allows these huge contributions, these secret contributions, but the court has decide this this presence will hold. >> that's right, john, congress had an opportunity to alter citizen s united, sort of hem i in some way and taken action on that. it's not an issue that particularly popular with the american people, because people have such greater concerns with their own pocket book issue, but in the big picture, it does shape our politics, who donates, how they donate, who influences the election process, so over

time, maybe congress will act on these issues, it's hard to know, but it's certainly a momentous decision because the court is saying that corporations can continue to give in to these major outside groups to state and local elected officials, and that makes such a big difference, because when you're running for office for, you know, your local mayor, it doesn't take a lot of money, you know, $20,000 or $100,000 could be all it takes to clobber your opponent and make you the victor. >> jess, i'm going to jump in the, forgive me for interrupting, i'm going to jump in for just a second. we have the arizona immigration law decision today. but we now know that the health care decision will not come out today. the justices have said the remaining decisions from this term will come out on thursday. so we will have to wait until thursday to see how the justices

will rule on the obama health care law, we thought that ruling could possibly come today, but the justices say any other outstanding decisions that we don't already have for you this morning will be decided on thursday. mark preston, just in terms of the political anticipation of this, we wait for health care, in the meantime, when you look at the campaign finance decision, you look at the arizona immigration decision, is there a single political verdict from that? or is it case by case? >> i think republicans and we have seen this from the republican leader mitch mcconnell, once the judgment was made regarding the supreme court deciding not to really hear the case regarding the montana decision, he called it a victory for free speech, it also has to do with unions and quite frankly it has to do with singular individuals that are willing to

put up, $5 million, $10 million, $20 million to influence the election. for the free speech advocates, this is a big victory for them. for immigration, as we have talked about over the past few minutes, this is a tough line for mitt romney to walk. he was very, very strident when it came to immigration enforce mmpb ment in the primary, but as you say, john, we're all waiting until thursday because that is the big verdict we're waiting for. >> and mark, we should note that governor romney, ironically, convinincidentally or not. i'm joined on phone by david coal, he's a controversial law professor in washington. the court has always said they're not political. however, does it surprise you at all that they leave the decision we are waiting for the most

until last? >> well, it doesn't surprise me, they may not be political, but they understand drama and so they're holding off until the very last day. it's also the most difficult case, the most important case and they may want the extra few days to, you know, be -- make sure that they're happy with written opinions. >> and let's go through what we learned today. the arizona case was also highly anticipated, much like the individual mandate part of the health care bill, a signature question about the powers of the federal government versus the powers and the rights of the state governments. when you see the court in this 5-3 provision, striking down key provisions of the law, but leaving in place section 2b, as long they're in your custody for some other offense, if they have reason to believe that you are not here legally and ask for

proof. >> most people are predicting that they would uphold most of the arizona law, but based on the questions, that in fact they struck down most of the arizona law. so you can't always predict by oral argument, second, i think this was almost a total victory for the obama and the federal government. because what the court says, look, immigration enforcement is a federal matter, it is not a matter for the state. if and when the federal government, congress or the attorney general, invite s cooperation from the state, but states can't unilaterally decide that they're going to enforce immigration laws the way that congress has chosen not to. so it has struck down the provisions of the vaur yos status -- -- arizona can't make that a crime, congress can make

that a crime, but congress hasn't made it a crime. in the provision that you refer to, the one that was left standing, they didn't uphold it. all they said was it's too early to tell before it's actually implemented whether it's inconsistent with federal law. they said it could be inconsistent with federal law, if it allows them to detain people for -- that would be inskents and they suggested if they were applied in a way that violated equal protection that also might be inconsistent with federal law, so all they said was this was a challenge before the law went into effect, let's see how the state courts interpret it and then we'll decide whether it's consistent federal laurks but the rest of the law they struck down. >> sir, i hope you can stay with us, we're going to take a quick break, if you're just joining us, the health care decision will not arrive until thursday.

very important decision today on the arizona immigration law. the campaign finance election that will affect state eelectatieelect atielect -- elections. our coverage will continue in just a moment. ♪ the 2012 c-class with over 2,000 refinements. it's amazing...inside and out. see your authorized mercedes-benz dealer for exceptional offers through mercedes-benz financial services.

through mercedes-benz if you made a list of countries from around the world... ...with the best math scores.

...the united states would be on that list. in 25th place. let's raise academic standards across the nation. let's get back to the head of the class. let's solve this.

i'm john king in washington. it's been a very important morning as the supreme court wraps up its term. one headlines we'll have to tell you up front, we'll have to wait until thursday for to the decis on the obama health care law. but it struck down three provisions in the arizona immigration law. one provision was allowed to stay in effect for now. the supreme court saying that they'll allow it until they see how it works in practice, the court did not strike down the

right of the state to ask for legal documentation. the arizona attorney general is reacting to the big decision, let's listen. >> to be treated as an individual. >> that was going to be my next question. as the top law man in our state, what do you do to make sure that racial profiling isn't happening out there? because the possibility is inherent in this law. we're representative of post that trains police officers, i these nature a member of their board and they have been doing training already to make sure that they know that they must not engage in racial profiling. >> for the person who livings in our state that doesn't want to feel like they're being harrassed. what do you tell them? >> as long there's no racial profiling, we're going everything we can to prevent it. it's important for them not to

have their constitutional rights violated. >> does this imfact just our state? or does this impact the entire country? >> a lot of states have been copying us, for those three minor provisions that we lost, they can't copy that, but they can copy the first one, and there are a number of provisions in the law that have been been decided on. >> is this about the police on the street, is this about sending a message to washington that you guys want more done on the immigration issue from the federal level? >> we have two sections on our border, in the unit section, president bush put in a lot of resources in effect. in the tucson sector, hundreds of thousands have crossed last year illegally, we need the obama administration to do what

the bush administration did in the yuma sector. that would go a long way toward solving or problems. >> you have sent the mess to the feds not only that you're dissatisfied the federal government's enforcement. >> that's one of our arizona affiliates, knxb. we have reaction from the governor jan brewer, who of course signed sb 1070 into the law. i have been reading over this decision and you quickly get to the politics of this. while the federal government won on several key provisions here in this case, governor brewer is for now declaring victory. >> yeah, she clares victory, the supreme court justify held what she calls the heart of sb 1070, she also says in her name, that law enforcement will be held accountable should this

statute be misused in a fashion that violates an individual civil rights. and she also says that the law will not be used in any way, so as to be seen as racial profiling. i think, john, obviously she's claiming victory here, on this part of the law that's very important to her state, she calls it the heart of the law, but i think it's also important to note and david cole was getting at this when you were interviewing him before. and that is that the supreme court said very clearly that their opinion, quote, does not foreclose other pre-emption and constitutional challenges to the law as interpreted and applied after it goes into effect. in other words, they're saying that this part of the law which they did uphold could still be challenged in a lower court. and it also -- i would say limited the authority of what jan brewer's police officers can

do because they can stop and briefly design somebody, but they cannot hold somebody unless they contact federal officials. so it does uphold what she's saying, but this doesn't preclude more legal challenges to that part of the law which she calls the heart of sb 1070. >> the court saying now arizona can implement those provisions of the law and once it's -- tolding -- holding somebody beyond the authority of a police officer's reasonable a lot of time. >> but you still have to check with federal immigration agents, though, so there is that sort of federal hadn't overseeing this. >> the central government winning on most of the counts of the arizona immigration law but state officials claiming a -- our special coverage of today's supreme court decisions will

continue in just a moment. see you back here thursday morning, the health care decision will be issued on the final day of this year's term. ♪ hello...rings ♪ what the... what the... what the... ♪ ♪ are you seein' this? ♪ uh-huh... uh-huh... uh-huh... ♪ ♪ it kinda makes me miss the days when we ♪ ♪ used to rock the microphone ♪ back when our credit score couldn't get us a micro-loan ♪ ♪ so light it up! ♪ even better than we did before ♪ ♪ yeah prep yourself america we're back for more ♪ ♪ our look is slacker chic and our sound is hardcore ♪ ♪ and we're here to drop a rhyme about free-credit-score ♪ ♪ i'm singing free-credit-score-dot-com ♪

♪ dot-com narrator: offer applies with enrollment in freecreditscore.com.

welcome back to our breaking news coverage. several important decisions by the united states supreme court today. i'm john king in washington. i want to bring in john horn, he's the republican -- mr. attorney general, the court struck down three key provisions of sb 1070, the arizona immigration law on areas where it said that the state was trying to police federal immigration issues. left in place, but with a question mark, section 2b which requires state officials to question the immigration status of any person it stops, but the court buzz pretty clear it wants to see how it was implemented and perhaps there could be challenges down the road.

>> you can always have a challenge down the road, but the requirement that a police officer who legally stops or arrests someone and has reasonable suspicion a person is here illegally must check with i.c.e., it doesn't have the discretion, we must check. i have been predicting we would win that one, the other three there was very little discussion in oral arguments so it was kind or hard to predict. must check with i.c.e. as to the status of that person. >> and what message do you take from the court. in implementing that now as the state goes forward, what message does the court send you in terms of essentially it better be aren't and it better not keep

somebody for too much time. >> i think the record shows that these checks can be done quickly and of course the big issue for us is that we want to make sure there's no racial profiling. in my opinion we have to protect the constitutional rights of people who are not here legally, but might be stopped because of their race, it's as important to protect their constitutional rights as it is to enforce the law. so we have been training people to be sure they do not do racial profiling. >> and is jeffrey toobin outside the court? please help me, is your interpretation of what the -- >> i think he's right, that this was what's known as a -- as you have been discussing, three of

the four provisions were found to be unconstitutional, were found to be a violation of the federal government's prerogatives when it comes to immigration. however the most controversial part of the law has been upheld. the so-called show us your papers provision has been upheld. and now we will see how arizona institutes, whether that will involved a violation of the rights of the people who are stopped. those case also have to wait. if there are any cases. so those would be as applied challenges. i think it is genuinely a mixed verdict and both sides can take solace from what the court did here. >> and attorney general horn, many of the -- passed similar

laws have that particular provision. >> are you asking me or mr. toobin? >> yes, sir, when states took arizona as a model, alabama for example, was this state have a section 2b of your law? >> they have additional provisions that we don't have. i think the only affects on other states copying our law is the three provisions that were struck down. these issues are analyzed one at a time and the fact that those provisions are struck down doesn't affect -- there are a number of provisions in our law that weren't at issue that are in effect right now. such as important provisions such as prohibiting sanctuary in certain cities. >> as we speak, now that the court has ruled, as we speak now, our arizona state and local police officers now enforcing that provision as of today? >> well, i think they will, they

will as of today or tomorrow, they will today, but certainly by tomorrow, we'll know that this law has been upheld and that they're able to do that. and they have been trained, as i said, to avoid racial profiling. even if it was a legal concern, it's a moral concern, we think it's important to treat people as individuals, and not limit anything they can do. so we want to do everything we can to make sure that nobody engagings in any racial profiling. >> tom horn is the republican attorney general, an attorney day for your time, i'm sure you know the country and perhaps the world will be watching as you implement this law going forward. we start the 11:00 hour here on the east coast. several important decisions from the united states supreme court today. this headline, the big health care decision will not come until thursday, that will be the final day of this year's supreme court term, including the charge of the